ACCEPTED
03-15-00295-CV
8063499
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/2/2015 11:09:06 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
Cause No. 03-15-00295-CV FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/2/2015 11:09:06 PM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Gerald Kostecka,
Appellant
VS
Smoky Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ,
Appellee
On appeal from the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County,
Texas
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT
Stuart Whitlow
LAW OFFICES OF STUART
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
WHITLOW
1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116
Round Rock, Texas 78664
(737) 346-1839
(512) 255-5938 (fax)
stuartwhitlowlaw@yahoo.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
NAMES OF ALL PARTIES TO FINAL JUDGMENT
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Gerald Kostecka
Represented at trial and on appeal by:
Stuart Whitlow
LAW OFFICES OF STUART WHITLOW
1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116
Round Rock, Texas 78664
(737)346-1839
(512) 255-5938 (fax)
stuartwhitlowlaw@yahoo.com
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
Represented at trial and on appeal by:
Robert A. House
Clark & Trevino
1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 920
Austin, Texas 78744
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INDEXOF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………vii
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................... 1
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................ 9
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
vi
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Page
Farlow v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hospital, 284 S.W.3d 903, 911
(Tex. App.-- Fort Worth 2008, Pet.
Denied)…………………………………………………………………5
La Sara Grain Co. v. First Nat’l Bank, 673 S.W.2d 558, 563 (Tex.
1984). …………………………………………………………………………..5
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
vii
STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
Texas Rule of Evidence
801(e)(2)(D)…………………………………………………………….7
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
viii
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Gerald Kostecka,
Appellant
VS
Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC, d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ,
Appellee
On appeal from the 26th Judicial District Court of Williamson County,
Texas
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant, Gerald Kostecka, submits this Reply Brief pursuant to
Rule 38.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in support of his
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
1
appeal and requests reversal of the trial court=s order granting
Appellee=s no-evidence motion for summary judgment. Appellant asks
that this cause be set for submission on oral argument.
ARGUMENT
Appellee’s basic point in their brief seems to be that Appellant
failed to bring forth more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact
with respect to certain elements of Appellant’s cause of action.
Appellee’s Brief at Page 3, 8. Appellee’s first argument is that
“Kostecka puts forth no evidence of the injuries, or other damages, he
claims to have sustained.” Appellee’s Brief at Page 9. In his Affidavit
in support of his Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
2
Judgment (hereinafter “Response”), however, Appellant states that
“[a]s a result of the fall, I sustained substantial injuries to my body (in
particular my left leg and knee) and felt severe pain and suffering. As
a result of the fall, I also have experienced substantial physical
impairment and mental anguish. Such pain and suffering, as well as
the physical impairment resulting from the injuries and mental anguish
continue until this day.” Response, Supplemental Clerk’s Record,
Volume 1, Page 7. Obviously, contrary to Appellee’s assertion,
Appellant brought forth more than a scintilla of evidence on this
element and thus raised a fact issue.
Appellee then argues that the facts set forth in Appellant’s
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
3
Affidavit supporting the Response are nothing more than repetitions of
the facts in Appellant’s pleadings. To the contrary, Appellee has it
backwards. The facts set forth in Appellant’s Response to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment are taken from Appellant’s Affidavit
attached to the Response. Appellee appears to be saying that
Appellant’s statements regarding the injuries resulting from the fall in
Appellee’s restaurant are “conclusory” in nature. Appellee’s Brief at
Page 10. It is hardly “conclusory” to say that one suffered injuries to
one’s left leg and knee as a result of a fall and that one felt severe
pain and suffering as a result. Again, contrary to Appellees’ assertion,
it is not a conclusory statement to say that when Appellant reached for
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
4
the salt shaker at the table in Appellees’ restaurant, Appellant’s chair
shot out from under him and he fell to the floor landing on his left
knee. Response, Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7.
This is probative summary judgment evidence. To argue that such
statements are “conclusory” reveals a serious misunderstanding of that
term.
Appellee also argues that Appellant failed to bring forth more than
a scintilla of evidence that the unsafe condition with respect to
Appellant’s restaurant floor and chairs presented an unreasonable risk.
Appellee’s Brief at P. 11, 12. Here again, Appellant presented evidence
of a Smokey Mo’s employee coming up to Appellant right after the fall
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
5
and stating that the condition of the floor and the nature of the bottom
of the chair legs created a dangerous condition for customers in terms
of the chairs moving out from under customers just like Appellant’s
chair moved out from under him. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume
1, Page 7. This statement in and of itself directly provides far more
than a scintilla of evidence with respect to unreasonable risk of harm.
When this statement is combined with what actually happened to
Appellant and the various general rules of summary judgment with their
generous leaning toward the non-movant, Appellant has even more
obviously met his burden in this regard. Appellant’s Brief at Page 4, 5.
Appellee also argues that Appellant failed to present a scintilla of
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
6
evidence that Appellee possessed the premises where Appellant was
injured. Appellee’s Brief at Page 12, 13. To the contrary, Appellant
stated in his Affidavit that he and his wife went to a Smokey Mo’s
BBQ restaurant and that that is where he was injured. Supplemental
Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. He stated that he spoke with two
Smokey Mo’s BBQ employees after his fall at the restaurant.
Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Further, they spoke
to him about how Smokey Mo’s was aware of the dangerous condition.
Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Appellant also
talked about how Appellee failed to exercise ordinary care in
addressing the problem with its floor even though it knew about the
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
7
dangerous condition. Supplemental Clerk’s Record, Volume 1, Page 7.
If Appellee could not address the problem, it needed to warn
Appellant about the danger but it did not. Supplemental Clerk’s
Record, Volume 1, Page 7. Clearly, Appellant brought forth far more
than a scintilla of evidence with respect to this element. In addition, the
generous presumptions favoring the non-movant in a no-evidence
summary judgment analysis further make clear that Appellant far more
than met his burden with respect to this element. Appellant’s Brief at
Page 4, 5.
Appellee also apparently argues that the statements of the
Smokey Mo’s BBQ employees set forth in Appellant’s Affidavit were
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
8
hearsay because they were not acting within the scope of their
authority. Although they were acting within the scope of their authority,
this is not one of the requirements for determining whether statements
of an entity’s employees are hearsay or an admission by an opposing
party. Appellee cites Farlow v. Harris Methodist Forth Worth Hospital,
284 S.W.3d 903, 911 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2008, pet denied) in
support of Appellee’s point in this regard. Farlow, however, does not
stand for this proposition of law. (Appellee also cites La Sara Grain
Co. v. First Nat’l Bank, 673 S.W2d 448, 563 (Tex. 1984) in its
discussion of this issue, but it is very difficult to see how this case is
supportive of Appellee’s position.) Appellee correctly states the clear
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
9
language of Rule 801(e)(2)(D) of the Texas Rules of Evidence (the
governing Rule of Evidence with respect to this issue) to the effect that
a statement made by agents or employees on a matter within the
scope of that relationship and while it existed is not hearsay. Appellee
apparently believes, however, that it has to attempt to add a
requirement to this Rule of Evidence because the employees’
statements are clearly not hearsay under Rule of Evidence
801(e)(2)(D). In fact, the statements made by Appellee’s employees
set forth in Appellant’s Affidavit meet the test of Rule 801(e)(2) (D)
and Appellee’s effort to somehow revise this applicable Rule of
Evidence with a case which is not on point does not make those
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
10
statements hearsay.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
As Appellant Gerald Kostecka has demonstrated, the trial court
erred in granting Appellee Smokey Mo’s Franchise, LLC d/b/a
Smokey Mo’s BBQ’s no-evidence motion for summary judgment as to
Appellant’s premises liability claim. Appellant properly raised a material
issue of fact with respect to each of the elements of the premises
liability claim brought by Appellant. Accordingly, the summary judgment
issued by the trial court should be reversed and the cause should be
remanded for trial.
WHEREFORE, Appellant Gerald Kostecka asks this Court to rule
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
11
for Appellant with respect to the issues he presented for appeal, to
reverse the trial court=s granting of Appellee Smokey Mo’s Franchise,
LLC d/b/a Smokey Mo’s BBQ=s motion for no-evidence summary
judgment and to remand the cause to the trial court for further
proceedings. Appellant further respectfully requests that this Court
assess costs of this appeal against Appellee, Tex. R. App. P. 82, and
grant Appellant such other and further relief to which he may be
entitled.
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
12
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICESOF STUART WHITLOW
1104 S. Mays Street, Suite 116
Round Rock, Texas 78664
(737)346-1837
(512) 255-5938 (fax)
stuartwhitlowlaw@yahoo.com
By:_____/s/Stuart Whitlow____________
Stuart Whitlow
State Bar No. 21378050
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
13
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing document has been forwarded to the following counsel of
record listed below on this 2nd day of December, 2015.
Robert A. House
Clark & Trevino
1701 Directors Blvd, Suite 920
Austin, Texas 78744
________/s/ Stuart Whitlow________
Stuart Whitlow
CERTIFICATE OF PAGE NUMBER COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that I have counted the words in the brief and
that they total 1175.
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
14
_______/s/Stuart Whitlow______
Stuart Whitlow
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
15
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
16
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
17
C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\PDFCONVERTER\TEMP\NVDC\01C07008-B7B7-4417-9530-168CE9034617\6389CE9E-CB34-4C01-BA9E-440853764212FILE.DOC
18